STORY: "Hidden email casts doubt on Lucy Letby verdict,' by David Rose and Cleric de Oliveira, published by UnHerd, on April 13, 2025. ( David Rose is UnHerd’s Investigations Editor. Cleuci de Oliveira is a journalist who has written for The New York Times, The Telegraph and The Guardian, among other publications.)
Jayaram’s testimony was key in both trials over the attempted murder of the infant known as Baby K. After the first jury failed to agree, Letby was convicted and sentenced to a whole life order for this crime last July. The central pillars of her other guilty verdicts are the claim that she was always present when babies died or collapsed unexpectedly, and medical evidence which has come under sustained attack from British and international experts, who say that none of the infants were deliberately harmed.
According to Jayaram’s testimony, when he walked into a room where Letby was alone with Baby K, he discovered that the infant’s oxygen levels had plummeted because her breathing tube had been dislodged, and that the nurse was standing over the baby’s cot without raising the alarm. “Lucy Letby was stood next to the incubator. She wasn’t looking at me. She didn’t have her hands in the incubator,” he told the court at her retrial.
Yet in an email seen by UnHerd, Jayaram initially suggested that, in fact, Letby had called him for help, and this was why he went to see Baby K. This was exculpatory evidence that could have helped Letby’s defence team, yet her lawyers were not told of its existence before either trial. It was not disclosed to them until late September last year.
Born at 25 weeks on 17 February 2016, Baby K struggled to breathe and was placed on a ventilator. Jayaram was first interviewed by police in September 2017 about the rise in neonatal deaths at Letby’s unit. He recalled checking on Baby K unprompted, saying: “I hadn’t walked in because I’d been called. I walked in just to check.”
On several further occasions, Jayaram repeated the claim that no one had warned him there was a problem before he entered Baby K’s room: in statements to police, in his courtroom evidence at Letby’s trials, and at the public inquiry chaired by Lady Justice Thirlwall, whose report is expected later this year. In one statement in 2018, he said that usually, when a baby’s oxygen level fell, a nurse would “come looking for a doctor to assist”, but Letby “had not called me in”.
Giving evidence at Letby’s re-trial, he said that when he was told that another nurse who had been looking after Baby K was going to leave her alone with Letby in order to speak to the infant’s parents, he became deeply concerned because “we had had a number of unusual incidents with babies” and he had “noted the association with Lucy Letby being present”. This made him feel “very uncomfortable”, which was why he went to check, finding Baby K was desaturating while Letby did nothing to help her. Prosecuting counsel Nick Johnson KC asked Jayaram: “Did you hear any call for help from Lucy Letby?” His answer: “No, not at all.”
The prosecution said that Letby had deliberately dislodged the breathing tube, and that Jayaram had caught her “virtually red-handed”. Later, at the Thirlwall Inquiry, Jayaram said he wished he had reported the incident at the time: “I lie awake thinking about this… I should have been braver.”
Yet in his first account of Baby K’s desaturation, Jayaram wrote that far from going to check Baby K because he felt uncomfortable that she was alone with Letby, the real reason was that Letby herself had raised the alarm and asked him for help.
He set this out in an email to seven of his colleagues dated 4 May 2017. Its timing was significant. The previous July, Letby had been moved to clerical work as a result of concerns raised by Jayaram and other doctors. But she had lodged a grievance for bullying and harassment, and this had been upheld. Now the doctors were hoping to involve the police, who at first had seemed reluctant. Jayaram was commenting on a draft of a report they would shortly send to detectives, asking them to investigate.
He was blunt about its purpose: “for the police to have their interest piqued”. To do this, he suggested, the doctors should “highlight explicitly for these cases that LL was in attendance and in close proximity to the incubators (in those situations we know for a fact she was)”. He went on to suggest additions to the report about cases with which he had been involved, “hopefully more in a stating the facts way than a subjective finger pointing way”.
Jayaram’s email described Baby K’s deterioration and suggested Letby called him about low oxygen levels — a detail that appears to conflict with his later testimony. After the other nurse left the room, he wrote: “Staff nurse Letby [was] at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations.” He also wrote that the baby’s subsequent death was consistent with complications from extreme prematurity. The section in the email about Baby K was not included in the final report to the police.
Jayaram’s email was not disclosed to the defence before Letby’s trials. In other documents seen by UnHerd, Cheshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service state that they only became aware of it in August 2024 — one month after Letby had been convicted of attempting to murder Baby K.
However, the documents say it was supplied to the Thirlwall Inquiry, but it was not discussed there nor published on its website. We asked the Inquiry whether it received the email before or after Letby’s retrial, but it refused to comment.
It was not until late September that Letby’s former defence team was finally sent the email by Operation Duet, the police inquiry into possible corporate or gross negligence manslaughter at the Chester hospital unit. We understand it will now be added to the dossier submitted by Letby’s lawyer Mark McDonald to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is being asked to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal.
Jayaram did not respond to a request for comment. A Countess of Chester Hospital spokesperson told UnHerd: “Due to the Thirlwall Inquiry and ongoing police investigations, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.”
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
